D&D (2024) D&D Marilith Is Far More Bestial In 2025

The new 2025 Monster Manual has all-new art, and one major change is the depiction of the marilith. Up until now, the marilith has been depicted as a six-armed humanish female from the waist up; while in the 2025 book, the picture is far more bestial in nature.

Not only is the imagery more demonic, it also features the creature in action, simultaneously beheading, stabbing, and entwining its foes with its six arms and snake-like tail.

Left 2025 Marilith / Right 2014 Marilith​

 

[Corinnguard]

What do you do about conflicts like this then?

I have been looking and participating in this thread mostly out of curiosity. I am not really bothered by how the Marilith looks in 5.5. I believe that WoTC had a particular reason for making them look this way compared to how they looked in previous editions. But I also believe that WoTC isn't going to come right out and say why they did what they did. So, we're all left rolling Insight checks over and over again. Anyhow, it's not like we're forbidden from using their past appearances in an adventure.

As for this conflict, I'll continue to watch it play out. I have seen and participated in worse conflicts than this.

 

[Imaro]

The whole lore thing outside of an actual setting, which the 5e '24 core books don't have, is hard for me to grasp. I assumed almost everybody homebrewed their monster lore, using what they wanted from the books as is or for inspiration and changing what they don't...

Is corebook lore really a major thing in the wider playerbase?

 

[dave2008]

I have been looking and participating in this thread mostly out of curiosity. I am not really bothered by how the Marilith looks in 5.5. I believe that WoTC had a particular reason for making them look this way compared to how they looked in previous editions. But I also believe that WoTC isn't going to come right out and say why they did what they did. So, we're all left rolling Insight checks over and over again. Anyhow, it's not like we're forbidden from using their past appearances in an adventure.

As for this conflict, I'll continue to watch it play out. I have seen and participated in worse conflicts than this.

To be clear, I was talking about the conflict in the 3.5e MM that has text describing the Marilith torso as an attractive human female when the art is neither attractive (subjective) nor human (apparently scaled skin and definitely pointy elf-like ears). In this case, should a D&D scholar assume the text is correct and the art wrong, or vice versa. I say scholar, because for game play purposes it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

[dave2008]

The whole lore thing outside of an actual setting, which the 5e '24 core books don't have, is hard for me to grasp. I assumed almost everybody homebrewed their monster lore, using what they wanted from the books as is or for inspiration and changing what they don't...

Is corebook lore really a major thing in the wider playerbase?

I'm with you, but it is really important to some people around here.

 

[Imaro]

I'm with you, but it is really important to some people around here.

I guess they must really hate 3rd party monster books...

 

[dave2008]

I guess they must really hate 3rd party monster books...

Ha! No, that is not how it works

 

[Imaro]

Ha! No, that is not how it works

The funny thing is some of the same people up in arms about changes to the Marilth lore also criticize WotC constantly for not being more creative or taking bigger chances...

Make it make sense??

 

[Voadam]

The whole lore thing outside of an actual setting, which the 5e '24 core books don't have, is hard for me to grasp. I assumed almost everybody homebrewed their monster lore, using what they wanted from the books as is or for inspiration and changing what they don't...

Is corebook lore really a major thing in the wider playerbase?

I would assume most use the ready to go corebook lore rather than inventing their own different lore for most everything unless they are doing something specifically different like Eberron or have a nonstandard theme in mind or there is something in the standard lore they specifically do not like.

I would expect a lot of people just play D&D fairly straight though. Using the corebook monster lore means you don't have to make up your own for a hundred monster statblocks, you can use modules fairly straight, you can draw on D&D history, and the DM and players have a decently shared lore to use without explaining all the differences.

 

[Imaro]

I would assume most use the ready to go corebook lore rather than inventing their own different lore for most everything unless they are doing something specifically different like Eberron or have a nonstandard theme in mind or there is something in the standard lore they specifically do not like.

I would expect a lot of people just play D&D fairly straight though. Using the corebook monster lore means you don't have to make up your own for a hundred monster statblocks, you can use modules fairly straight, you can draw on D&D history, and the DM and players have a decently shared lore to use without explaining all the differences.

Yes but all of the lore has never been the same across editions... the corebooks provide default lore but its never been either constantly continuous or tied to any continuous setting.

Edit: Which is to say what history exactly?

 

[Voadam]

Yes but all of the lore has never been the same across editions... the corebooks provide default lore but its never been either constantly continuous or tied to any continuous setting.

Edit: Which is to say what history exactly?

Right, corebook lore has changed in specific ways at different points which causes frictions with people who have been using prior corebook lore.

We see this in most edition changes.